Home
_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Show HN: Clean News - A cleaner curation of world news events
rNULLED wrote 2 min ago:
i like it. how do you want to monetize?
LoginSmith wrote 24 min ago:
Thanks for that.
Gualdrapo wrote 24 min ago:
Can't tell how things are looking on desktop right now, but after
seeing it on mobile I wish texts had a bit bigger font.
Otherwise it's a nice job, congratulations.
sumeruchat wrote 3 min ago:
Thanks. The text size is a bit tricky because preferences differ but
will think about it.
mmooss wrote 28 min ago:
Thank you.
How do you choose which articles go where?
At least one is outdated - the launch of Europa Clipper.
For me, clustering articles by topic would make it much more efficient,
so I could browse by topic. Easier said than done, of course, unless
you are manually curating it.
sumeruchat wrote 25 min ago:
Hmm I would say should be doable by ai models. Will add some
clickable topics / tags to the top bar
transformi wrote 32 min ago:
very biased and unrealiable sources though...
VWWHFSfQ wrote 29 min ago:
who are the unbiased and reliable sources
senectus1 wrote 40 min ago:
Can this have a RSS feed or do I need to scrape it?
sumeruchat wrote 39 min ago:
Noted will add a simple rss feed asap.
airstrike wrote 52 min ago:
Pretty cool stuff. If I were building this, I'd add some tagging system
so users could filter what they want to see. Politics, business,
sports, entertainment, etc.
Right now it seems heavily weighted towards world politics with a
sprinkle of Victoria's Secret
Specifically I'd make it like little tags that you can click on to
filter for or click on an x to filter out, something like that (think
like how you can "solo" or "mute" any given track on a DAW)
sumeruchat wrote 40 min ago:
Noted. I was thinking of those filtering tags in the top bar as well.
matthew-wegner wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
How would you compare/contrast this to [1] ?
Edit: You appear to be scraping it, actually?
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
sumeruchat wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
Yes and it is a pretty good MVP using that :)
matthew-wegner wrote 57 min ago:
You might want to give appropriate credit! And by "might" I mean
specifically
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creati...
sumeruchat wrote 51 min ago:
Good point will add that to the footer asap.
zeagle wrote 1 hour 10 min ago:
Perhaps one piece of news seems to be positive and most seem about
death and war. I respect the site and effort but I would worry about
putting myself in such a headspace. There is positive stuff in this
world too just don't lose sight of it!
rexpop wrote 57 min ago:
I expect adults to govern their own self-care, but I can't expects
adults to do their own journalism.
We will encounter, as our awareness of the world expands, turbulent
and traumatizing information. This isn't something to be
criticized--it's unavoidable up to and including our own mortality.
The responsible adult does not bury their head in the sand but,
instead, interrogates the foundations of their own security.
Smell a flower. Take a bubble bath. Listen to some jazz. Hug your
loved ones.
But don't cork the fountain of truth.
sumeruchat wrote 43 min ago:
âThe truth will set you freeâ :)
mattcantstop wrote 1 hour 4 min ago:
I had the same perspective. This seemed more like a running "who was
bombed today" news feed. Those events are important and meaningful,
but it's not something I would come back to frequently as I have
found it is not healthy for me to bombard myself with sad news which
is outside of my sphere of influence.
I do like the simplicity and interface, however.
sumeruchat wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
Well it is a violent time we live in right now if you compare to a
few years ago but point noted
Mobleysoft wrote 1 hour 19 min ago:
This is awesome. Reminds me of the drudgereport when it was good. Only
recommendation would be a way to see the article content summary
without click through if I want a bit more info but not enough to click
through and face ads. Food for thought.
sumeruchat wrote 1 hour 16 min ago:
Thanks! Yeah thats coming soon within a month (using gpt4o).
ranger_danger wrote 1 hour 33 min ago:
What does "clean" mean in this context?
sumeruchat wrote 1 hour 28 min ago:
Clean in this context means clean from clickbait headlines and
presenting information more factually
unsnap_biceps wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
How do you determine factually? Or do you filter out anything that
isn't described as factual?
For example, you have
"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says North Korea has
become directly involved in the war, with a senior Ukrainian
intelligence official saying around 3,000 North Korean troops are
now in Russia, and are training for deployment to Russian-occupied
territories. (Politico)"
which I have no clue if this is factual. How did you determine that
it's factual?
defrost wrote 46 min ago:
I worked in the energy+mineral intelligence domain developing
work that was subscribed to by investors and later sold to S&P
(of the index).
The "is it factual" rule here is simpler than you may think* - in
your example, can it be verified by multiple credible sources
that
* Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said "as quoted", and
that
* A senior Ukrainian intelligence official said "as quoted"
If so then it's fine to report that .. it's factual that they
made the statements, whether what they said is also true is a
seperate matter that may or may not be addressed in another
reported snippet.
In the aggragator case here they're not even making the claim
that "Volodymyr Zelenskyy said {X}" .. instead they are asserting
as fact that "Politico reported that {Y}" .. which can be
verified by a secure link to the Politico source.
* Until recently ...
Today, of course, there's highly credible in appearence generated
video of public figures saying things they never said - this is
the current challenge.
The means to address that is to chain reported news to sources
and develop better tools to probe that chain for BS. A work in
progress.
sumeruchat wrote 28 min ago:
Thats interesting. Will use this definition in the about page
in the future :)
sumeruchat wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
When i say factual i mean a description thats straightforward and
objective. No sensationalism or misleading framing to provoke an
emotional reaction
axelthegerman wrote 59 min ago:
Fully makes sense plus I appreciate the source right there in
the title so you can use that as well to decide how trustworthy
it might be. Well done
sumeruchat wrote 50 min ago:
Thanks for the kind words :)
mattcantstop wrote 1 hour 3 min ago:
Are you changing the titles to remove anything emotional or
misleading manually, through AI, or some other way?
sumeruchat wrote 53 min ago:
The source I am using is already doing a good job at that but
i plan to use more sources (for example reddit) and use gpt
to remove misleading titles if there is enough interest in
the project.
DIR <- back to front page